I'm reading through Masters of Meditation and Miracles: Lives of the Great Buddhist Masters of India and Tibet. It is a collection of biographies of masters from the Longchen Nyingthig lineage. I am noticing a trend of asceticism among the LN masters. Jigme Lingpa in particular comes to mind, and it seems that anyone that received his teachings admired his asceticism and followed that path.

My question is, why are they practicing asceticism after the Buddha advocated a "middle way" between asceticism and hedonism?

A drunkard was passing through a graveyard and he saw a beautiful tomb made of pure white marble. He looked at the tomb, looked at the name on it. The tomb was that of the famous Rothschild family. He laughed and said, "These Rothschilds, they know how to live!"

Beats me Tom, all this celibacy and asceticism business. Why deny life?Only middle way possible has to be in and through the world not in some bolt hole hiding from it.One of our teachers said...'If you want to see perfectly dead men and yet still alive go to the monks and the monasteries. They are not alive: they are so afraid of life, so afraid of nature, that they have suppressed it everywhere'.

Chaps in India go to all sorts of body denying lengths. One fellow has stood on one leg for years. Christian ascetics likewise. Columba reportedly enjoyed little better than to stand up to his neck in icy water for hours at a time whilst reciting his office.The whole self incarceration and world denial implicit in monasticism is simply another facet.Self loathing or masochism the psychologists might deem it.

Osho wrote:A drunkard was passing through a graveyard and he saw a beautiful tomb made of pure white marble. He looked at the tomb, looked at the name on it. The tomb was that of the famous Rothschild family. He laughed and said, "These Rothschilds, they know how to live!"

Beats me Tom, all this celibacy and asceticism business. Why deny life?Only middle way possible has to be in and through the world not in some bolt hole hiding from it.One of our teachers said...'If you want to see perfectly dead men and yet still alive go to the monks and the monasteries. They are not alive: they are so afraid of life, so afraid of nature, that they have suppressed it everywhere'.

HTH

I will have to politely disagree. I don't see a problem with celibacy and monasticism. I don't consider that asceticism. I consider starving yourself to the point where your only nourishment for weeks comes from boiling a yak bone and drinking the water. Or these practices of standing on one leg for years, etc. Those seem to be the kind of things that Shakyamuni was teaching his monks to avoid.

Osho wrote:One of our teachers said...'If you want to see perfectly dead men and yet still alive go to the monks and the monasteries. They are not alive: they are so afraid of life, so afraid of nature, that they have suppressed it everywhere'.

Osho wrote:One of our teachers said...'If you want to see perfectly dead men and yet still alive go to the monks and the monasteries. They are not alive: they are so afraid of life, so afraid of nature, that they have suppressed it everywhere'.

Osho wrote:One of our teachers said...'If you want to see perfectly dead men and yet still alive go to the monks and the monasteries. They are not alive: they are so afraid of life, so afraid of nature, that they have suppressed it everywhere'.

Your teacher was mistaken.

Or a Zen teacher.

It doesn't matter what kind of teacher s/he claims to be. It's still a ridiculous characterization that doesn't at all describe the monks and nuns that I've known.

Jnana wrote:It doesn't matter what kind of teacher s/he claims to be. It's still a ridiculous characterization that doesn't at all describe the monks and nuns that I've known.

This is the whole statement by Rajneesh, and it has nothing to do with Bhiḳṣus, actually:

The more cultured and civilised the more dead. If you want to see perfectly dead men and yet still alive go to the monks in the monasteries, go to the priests in the churches, the Pope in the Vatican. They are not alive – they are so afraid of life, so afraid of nature that they have suppressed it from everywhere. They are already in their graves. You can paint the grave, you can even make a marble grave, very valuable – but the man inside is dead.

He is talking about Christian monasticism. Now, it still may not be an accurate statement, but nevertheless, the origin of the statement is in the contect of a discussion of Chang Tzu.

The asceticism you speak of was a pretty normal life for early monks. Homeless guys, wearing corpse rags who only ate whatever they could scrounge by begging once a day. What you call extremely ascetic is really not that bad compared to a stressful job and marriage to a difficult partner. Buddha ate a single grain of rice a day during his asceticism. There are degrees and a simpler life is not as scary as you think once you try it.

Masters who went hungry would often blame poor Karma for their predicament. They felt a few hunger pangs but felt that was a small price to pay for a life of leisure to practice and a mind that became like a wish fulfilling jewel.

tomamundsen wrote:My question is, why are they practicing asceticism after the Buddha advocated a "middle way" between asceticism and hedonism?

Asceticism includes a spectrum of disciplines, practices, and vows related to abstinence from worldly pleasures. The Buddha's middle way avoids the extremes of attachment to indulgence in sensual pleasure (kāmasukhallikānuyoga) and attachment to self-mortification (ātmakilamathānuyoga). Self-mortification involves various extreme types of asceticism. Buddhist monastic discipline on the other hand, is a moderate kind of asceticism. And even within mainstream Buddhism there were a number of austere practices that were allowed. Indeed, a number of Mahāyāna sūtras advise bodhisattvas to abandon the householder lifestyle and resort to the wilderness. Some sūtras explain these austerities in detail. Sūtra passages praising wilderness seclusion were still being quoted by Śāntideva and Vimalamitra in the 8th century, and it seems that this ideal was still highly regarded in Tibet.

tomamundsen wrote:My question is, why are they practicing asceticism after the Buddha advocated a "middle way" between asceticism and hedonism?

Asceticism includes a spectrum of disciplines, practices, and vows related to abstinence from worldly pleasures. The Buddha's middle way avoids the extremes of attachment to indulgence in sensual pleasure (kāmasukhallikānuyoga) and attachment to self-mortification (ātmakilamathānuyoga). Self-mortification involves various extreme types of asceticism. Buddhist monastic discipline on the other hand, is a moderate kind of asceticism. And even within mainstream Buddhism there were a number of austere practices that were allowed. Indeed, a number of Mahāyāna sūtras advise bodhisattvas to abandon the householder lifestyle and resort to the wilderness. Some sūtras explain these austerities in detail. Sūtra passages praising wilderness seclusion were still being quoted by Śāntideva and Vimalamitra in the 8th century, and it seems that this ideal was still highly regarded in Tibet.

One of Buddha's foremost disciples, Mahakashyapa, was an ascetic who did not shave his head and who practiced Dhutanga while roaming around in the forests surviving on fruits. So I suppose Buddha was not opposed to asceticism.

He was opposed to Self mortification which is a different thing altogether and this was understood to be in reference to the disciples of Niganthas. Stuff like sleeping on a bed of nails, inflicting pain on your body (like some Christians and Muslims do). This is what is extreme.